Si wrote:Would you really decry the successful work being done here becauce you think that youve squandered the money from a different funding pot, on a small part of a different project in a different part of the country?

I think the question actually being asked is whether it's successful and value for money, isn't it?

It wouldn't be the first charity project to get a lot of money to support community work and the bulk gets consumed in central office staff and admin costs, with relatively little reaching the ground and some local groups getting nothing.

Paulatic wrote:... Bikes being repaired and we got that locally to me, for people, who could easily afford to pay. ...

Do you want the next Big Bike Revival to be "means tested"?

Yep...that project was about reviving bikes and getting people riding again. The people in question may well have been able to afford to fix their own bikes but they hadn't. Thus if BBR had got them riding then it had been a success in that sense. Whether it had ample returns for the money invested - I'll not comment on as I don't know what the returns were, or whether the project as a whole is exemplified by the work in one specific area (just as I pointed out that although I believe CCCs work has been successful in my area I do not have data to comment on its success elsewhere).

On the other hand the CCCs project is aimed at groups that certainly make up minorities in the world of cycling and thus is much more applicable to the thread: is CUK interested in women...who make up a minority of the cyclising population. The way that funding works is not that random organisations give CUK a bucket of money and then CUK just spends it on whatever they fancy; rather CUK put together a specific proposal, bid for a specific funding pot and then need to show that it was spent accordingly....it works like this for CUK just as it works like this for non-charity organisations. Thus even if BBR did have an unlimited river of funding (which it certainly did not - it might sound like lots to you or I on a personal level but it doesn't go very far at all when you start trying to fund a large project) none of it could just be diverted to other projects willy-nilly.

Paulatic wrote:... Bikes being repaired and we got that locally to me, for people, who could easily afford to pay. ...

Do you want the next Big Bike Revival to be "means tested"?

Not at all.....I'd much prefer to see financial aid being given where it's needed and some concrete evidence the funding achieves in a meaningful way what it sets out to do. The only thing I witnessed was a badly timed poorly executed campaign BBR in my part of Scotland. Perhaps someone elsewhere in Scotland can provide a counter view to that. The only beneficiaries I've seen is extra employment for some and extra trade for a few cycle repair businesses. The other thing worth noting is that IMV CUK are their worst enemy with headlines claiming they've won X amount of money and control it's spend. In reality, here in Scotland anyway, it's usually been a joint claim with at least another three organisations and obviously the way it's spent is not entirely their doing.

Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life RIP Hannah Hauxwell

brynpoeth wrote:Good news from *British* Columbia in the Grauniad - Employers may no longer require employees to wear high heels

I am male but I love females but I often can not understand them

At work we must wear safety shoes but some of the ladies prefer not to, although the shoes are free, light and comfortable, one has ones own pair ( no need to share)

Can anyone explain?

Merci beaucoup

It is their choice. That is what the entire high heels issue was about. Some women choose and like to wear high heels, and can do so if they wish. But pre-conceived ideas of how women look (and act) should not force all women to wear high heels in a particular workplace; they should have a choice. Likewise, women (and men) may wear safety shoes and presumable it is sensible to do so, however, if they choose not to, that is their choice also.Women are not 'uniform' and not 'identakit'; we all have our own ideas of dress, politics, different interests, different cultures, so please stop talking about 'women' like we are all the same. We are individuals, as are men.

brynpoeth wrote:At work we must wear safety shoes but some of the ladies prefer not to, although the shoes are free, light and comfortable, one has ones own pair ( no need to share)

Can anyone explain?

Sorry about the long post...

Safety shoes are designed by men, for men. Many women do not find them comfortable. I have worn them all of my working life, and have always struggled to find any that fit well enough to wear for more than an hour or so. When I began my working career, it was difficult to even find them in my size. I often wore them a little too big because it gave me many more choices about type and style. If they did have them in my size they often were clearly meant for temporary wear, rather than all day.

My employers have sometimes been entirely unreasonable about this issue, as well. I once had to get a medical exemption because my employer wanted me to wear one of the brands that they purchased bulk stock of. Unfortunately, even in my size, they damaged my feet, and my employer refused to buy me safety shoes that actually fit. They also made me jump through hoops to get permission to wear certified safety footwear that I purchased myself

In the last 15 years or so, safety shoes for women have become much better, but even so, if I visit suppliers or clients in the USA or the UK, I take my own with me. I am otherwise likely to end wearing something that is extremely uncomfortable. The last time I failed to do so, I was given some slip-over toetector things that came in sizes small, medium and large. Small was too big for me (I take roughly a women's 8 or men's 6, so not tiny feet). I did my best, but they rubbed blisters on my feet. When I said something (politely) about it, the sales rep at our supplier actually told me that if women didn't wear such unsuitable shoes, I wouldn't have a problem. I was wearing plain black flats, and he was wearing expensive Italian leather dress shoes. I suggested that providing safety shoes only in men's sizes might be discriminatory, but I have no idea if they have bought any in women's sizes.

I have not had the same problem in Norway. Many more women work in industry and engineering here, so comfortable safety shoes in women's sizes are readily available.

“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

We have 5 female members of staff; the Company General Manager, the QSM, Senior Rail Vehicle Technician, Warranty Engineer and Internal Sales.They all wear safety shoes for work, comfortable and well fitting .... because they went to local work wear suppliers and chose what they liked and that fitted.... well most of them .. Linda, our Senior Rail Vehicle Technician has to wear Railway Group Standard boots .... they where expensive !!! But they all also have safety glasses, apart from from 1 they are prescription .... which the company paid for .... Comfortable staff work well ..... no brainer ....